lefteris_kaliamboswikiaorg-20200214-history
THOMSON AND MICHELSON REJECT EINSTEIN
This paper was announced to many universities around the world (September 2013). By Prof.LEFTERIS KALIAMBOS ( Λευτέρης Καλιαμπός ) T. E. Institute of Larissa. Greece PREFFACE ''' Writing in Google Scholar “Kaliambos” one can see my paper IMPACT OF MAXWELL’S EQUATION OF DISPLACEMENT CURRENT ON ELECTROMAGNETIC LAWS AND COMPARISON OF THE MAXWELLIAN WAVES WITH OUR MODEL OF DIPOLIC PARTICLES presented at the International conference “Frontiers of fundamental physics” (Olympia, 1993). The paper invalidates Maxwell’s fields moving through a fallacious ether. Especially Maxwell for formulating his electromagnetic theory (1865) was based not on the well-established laws of Coulomb (1785) and Ampere (1820) but on wrong postulations. For example in the Faraday induction law (1832) of relative motions of magnets and conductors he used not the Faraday magnetic resultant exhibited by an electric current but a hypothetical electric field which violates the principle of relativity Also in the Ampere law of force acting at a distance Maxwell used not the real current but a hypothetical “Displacement Current” between the plates of a capacitor. Note that according to the experiment of French and Tessman (1963) the hypothetical displacement current involves misconceptions. Moreover since such wrong fields do not carry mass did much to retard the progress of physics because Einstein’s massless photons as quanta of Maxwell’s fields violate the two conservation laws of mass and energy. Although the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley (1887) rejected the ether in favor of Newton’s particles of light having mass, Einstein using the Lorentz math of the ether theory develop his invalid theories of special and general relativity by using massless photons, which violate not only the two conservation laws of mass and energy but also the Galilean principle of relativity of the well-established laws of Newton, Coulomb, and Ampere. Note that Einstein influenced by Maxwell’s wrong self-propagating fields transmitting energy with no mass in his explanation of the photoelectric effect used only the energy of his quanta of light, while Newton in hiss Opticks (1704) proposed particles of light having mass. So Newton predicted the bending of light near the sun confirmed by Soldner in 1801.(See my PHOTON OF LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ). It is fortunate that all the detailed experiments of the Quantum Entanglement (1935) confirmed accurately the fundamental forces of Newton, Coulomb, and Ampere acting at a distance with instantaneous simultaneity, which reject the idea that forces are carried by fields or by virtual massless photons or hypothetical massless gluons. Under this condition I revived the well-established laws for revealing the nuclear structure and binding. Thus in nuclear phenomena the energy of generated photons is due not to the mass defect of nucleons but to the energy of electromagnetic forces, while the mass defect turns into the mass of photons. So one can also see my paper NUCLEAR STRUCTURE IS GOVERNED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM presented at the12th Symposium of the Hellenic nuclear physics society (NCSR "Demokritos", 2002). Using the well-established laws which led to the enormous success of the Bohr model (1913) and the time- independent Schrodinger equations in three dimensions (1926) I prepared the above paper published in Ind. J. Th. Phys. (2003). The paper reveals the nuclear structure by reviving the electromagnetic forces of the well-established laws of Coulomb and Ampere. Therefore it invalidates both Einstein’s relativity and the theories of the wrong standard model developed after the abandonment of natural laws. It is unfortunate that the so-called Standard Model under the influence of Einstein’s quanta of fields proposed that photons are massless bosons able to carry the electromagnetic forces, though Gilbert N. Lewis who coined the name photon in 1926 (from Greek ΦΩTA or PHOTA “light bulbs”) considered that photons, in fact, are simple carriers of energy. (See in User Kaliambos the above papers along with my paper “ Spin-spin interaction of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures” published in Ind.J.Th. Phys. in 2008). Prior to my papers it was assumed that nuclear phenomena are governed by the fallacious strong and weak interactions regarded as two separate, unrelated phenomena. The so-called strong and weak interactions were still shrouded in mystery, because the forces could not be couched in a simple formalism, nor could they be expressed in a closed analytic form. Hence in the description of nuclear properties one could rely on various wrong and contradicting theories and models. In fact both strong and weak interactions are fallacious forces because all nuclear phenomena are interpreted by the detailed applications of the well-established laws of Coulomb and Ampere. Also my papers solved the crisis of atomic and nuclear physics due to Einstein’s invalid “mass-energy equivalence”. Despite the conservation laws of mass and energy developed by the Greek philosophers confirmed by experiments today physicists believe that the mass defect in atomic and nuclear bindings turns into the energy of Einstein’s massless photons. (See FROM GREEK PHILOSOPHY TO THE CRISIS OF MODERN PHYSICS in my NEW REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS ). In fact, photons have real mass which is responsible for the increase of the electron mass in accelerators. Although Maxwell’s electromagnetic energy has no mass J.J. Thomson in 1981 recognized that the electromagnetic energy corresponds to a certain mass called electromagnetic mass which led me to reveal that photons have real mass. So all particles cannot move as fast as the speed of light when they absorb the real photon mass in accordance with the conservation law of mass. '''HISTORY OF THE CONSERVATION LAW OF MASS An important idea of Greek philosophers like Anaximander (610-546 B.C.), and Heraclitus (540-480 B.C.) was that “Nothing comes from nothing” so that what exist now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before. A characteristic statement of this is found also in Empedocles (494-434 B.C.) “For it is impossible for anything to come to be from what is not, and it cannot be brought about, or heard of that what is should be utterly destroyed .” Then in his great work On the nature of things, '''''the Roman poet Lucretius, contemporary to Julius Caesar and Cicero, recorded an embellished the nature-philosophy of Greece’s Democritus (.470-390 B.C.) and Epicurus ( 341-270 B.C.) and he reiterated what may be considered as one of the earliest hints of a profound general principle of science: “Things cannot be born from nothing, cannot when begotten be brought back to nothing.” Everything now existing must have continual existence in past, present, and future, although form, appearance, and the like may indeed change. ( See this important phylisophical concept taken from Greek philosophers that our observable universe is a part of an eternal cosmos in my paper OUR EARLY UNIVERSE ). Yet there is a very considerable distance from the panegyric of Lucretius to the modern law of conservation of mass-that almost axiomatic basis of much in our physical sciences-which teaches that despite changes of position, shape, phase, chemical composition, and so forth, the total mass in a given enclosed region remains constant. Assuming, then, that there was now available the concept of an isolated or closed system by which to define the region of attention, there was next needed a criterion for measuring the quantity of matter before a conservation law could be formulated. And this was provided by Newton in the opening paragraph of the Principia'' (1687) where, speaking of the term “quantity of matter” It is of interest to note that Lavoisier was the first to prove the conservation law of mass by experiments. As Lavoisier wrote in 1789: “We must lay it down as an incontestable axiom, that in all the operations of art and nature, nothing is created; an equal quantity of matter exists both before and after the experiment.” However despite Lavoisier’s emphatic statement of the conservation law, there was still room for doubt. In 1872 the German chemist Lothar Meyer suggested that the rearrangement of atoms during chemical reactions might be accompanied by the absorption or emission of the mass of particles of light or light waves. Such particles might leave or enter the system even though it was sealed to prevent matter from coming in or going out. At that time it was still an open question to accept between Newton’s particles of light having mass or Maxwell’s waves with no mass. If Maxwell’s waves exist with mass, then the mass of the system could change by a very small amount of mass of these waves. Unfortunately Einstein in 1905 influenced by Maxwell’s wrong self-propagating fields with no mass believed that his photons are massless particles. So in the interpretation of the photoelectric effect he used only the conservation law of energy by suggesting that the kinetic energy of the electrons is due to the absorption of the photon energy hν. However Kaufmann in 1902 showed experimentally that the kinetic energy of an electron is accompanied by an increase of the electron mass. Thus Einstein’s incomplete explanation of the photoelectric effect did much to retard the progress of physics because Einstein himself developed his invalid special relativity with the wrong concepts of rest mass, relativistic mass , rest mass energy, mass –energy equivalence, and mass-energy conservation, which violated the two conservation laws of energy and mass and led to the crisis of atomic and nuclear physics. (See myNEW STRUCTURE OF PROTONS AND NEUTRONS ). '''THOMSON’S ELECTROMGNETIC MASS REJECTS EINSTEIN’S QUANTA OF MAXWELL’S FIELDS HAVING NO MASS Since Einstein did not like the well-established laws of his “Old Science” prefered not to take into account a number of experiments and laws for developing a photon theory which must correlate many separate facts in a logical, easily grasped structure of thought. For example Newton in his Opticks (1704) based on the mass of his particles of light predicted the bending of light near the sun confirmed by Soldner in 1801, while Maxwell based on the electromagnetic properties of light discovered by Faraday (1845) in his theory of wrong self-propagating fields suggested the transmission of energy with no mass. Influenced by Maxwell’s fields with no mass Einstein in his paper (1905) of the explanation of the photoelectric effect begins by paying tribute to the assumed wide usefulness of Maxwell’s theory of light; it “has proved itself excellently suited for the description of purely optical phenomena refraction, polarization, etc., and will probably never be replaced by another theory.” It is fortunate that in 1881 the discoverer of the electron J.J. Thomson recognized that the electromagnetic energy corresponds to a certain mass called electromagnetic mass. Thomson also recognized that the mass of a body in motion is increased by a constant quantity. Meanwhile, the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley (1887) rejected the Maxwellian ether in favor of Newton’s particles of light having mass. In this way of particles of light Planck in 1900 discovered that light consists of discrete quantities (quanta) having energy hν. Then, Kaufmann was the first to confirm that the mass of an electron increases with velocity and he explained his experiments of 1901-1903 by using the so-called electromagnetic mass. Under this condition of a number of experiments showing the gravitational and electromagnetic properties of light and the fact that Planck discovered that light consists of particles having energy hν, Einstein should compare the gravitational properties of Newton’s predictions with the electromagnetic properties of light which could lead to the conclusion that the so-called electromagnetic mass of Thomson should be the photon mass of his photons behaving like moving dipoles able to produce electric and magnetic forces of the well-established laws of Coulomb and Ampere when they interact with electrons. Thus in the photoelectric effect the absorbed photons should give off not only the energy hν discovered by Planck, but also the mass of Newton’s particles of light or the so-called electromagnetic mass recognized by Thomson. (See myNEWTON AND GALILEO REJECT EINSTEIN ). MICHELSON’S FAMOUS EXPERIMENT REJECTS EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY It is well-known that the orbiting speed u = 30Km/s of the earth is about 1/10,000 of the speed c of light. So Michelson and Morley in 1887 in order to reveal the difference in the speed of light through an immovable ether along a parallel length L and a perpendicular length Lo to the earth’s velocity through the same ether the experiment would have to be of great accuracy. The total time T required for light to travel along the parallel length L (round trip) is T = L/(c-u) + L/(c + u) = 2Lc/(c2 – u2 ) While the time To for light to travel along an equal but perpendicular length Lo (round trip) is To = 2Lo/(c2-u2)0.5 Surprisingly they found that T = To . Since M = Mo one gets T/To = c/(c2 - u2)0. 5 = 1 which means that u = 0. That is, the Earth and also the light move not through a hypothetical Maxwellian ether. However Lorentz (1904) in order to explain the Kaufmann experiment influenced by Maxwell’s fields moving through a fallacious ether proposed that T/To >1 under a strange assumption that the distance L of the interferometer is contracted. Especially he proposed that the values of time intervals and of mass are dilated since the interferometer moves through an ether. Here we clear that the mass of the electron increases under a length contraction and a time dilation when the electron absorbs both the energy hν and the photon mass m = hν/c2. Note that this hypothesis of Lorentz was more complicated when Einstein in 1905 in his special relativity used the same math of the Lorentz ether theory but abandoned provisionally the ether. In fact, Einstein himself was a defender of the existence of ether, because for formulating his general relativity he introduced an “ether structure” or a strange “curvature of spacetime.” For example in 1924 he wrote: “ According to special relativity, the ether remains still absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies….is independent of every kind of physical influence.” Note that when Michelson and Einstein met briefly in 193, Michelson remarked that he regretted that his experiment might have been responsible for giving birth to such a “monster” – referring to the theory of special relativity. But as Einstein later recalled, “In my development, Michelson result has not had a considerable influence. I even do not remember if I knew of it at all when I wrote my first paper on the subject.”. Here we clear that Einstein used the same math of Lorentz similar to the Michelson math of his experiment. However Lorentz used the similar math of Michelson not to reject the ether but to support Maxwell’s fields moving through the fallacious ether under a strange hypothesis that the interferometer of Michelson is contracted. Category:Fundamental physics concepts